Answering corboy on Cult Education Forum

Answering corboy on Cult Education Forum

Joined: March 3rd, 2005, 2:52 am

October 21st, 2010, 5:16 pm #1

http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?12,6 ... #msg-93104
What if someone is revived and they discover the world is more complicated than ever before and they lack the social skills and training to cope? (Imagine someone put into a coma in 1750, and they are awakened in 1950. That person has slept through the invention of the automobile, and wakes up, tries to cross a street and is run over, because he or she doenst know a thing about waiting for the green traffic light)
Which part of this world? In our time, someone who has trouble with life in a major city could live satisfactorily in a smaller community or rural area instead, or even migrate to another country. Future societies will probably also have a variety of social and political structures to choose from.
What if all their friends and family are dead and they have no social support community? A great part of humanity is to be not just a mere self, but a self-in-community?
Try harder. Plenty of people have done that, especially ones who've fled abusive political situations in their home countries to start new lives in countries with more benign governments, like the U.S.
What if the financial portfolio set aside for the frozen person is looted and embezzled and the person wakes up poor?
That gets to the issue of trusts. Ever hear of James Smithson? Alfred Nobel? Nobody "looted and embezzled" their trusts, even though their bequests imposed unwelcome burdens on their respective trustees. And a lot of people in the late 19th Century did not like Nobel because they considered his invention of dynamite socially detrimental. But his trustees carried out his wishes regardless, after deciding how to interpret them.

Besides the fact that trusts have an excellent track record, they also provide opportunities for trustees to gain status. A competent and honest trustee of someone else's fortune signals his integrity to other people, and that can gain him other kinds of rewards, like business opportunities he might not have had otherwise.

But suppose you do revive broke. That doesn't mean you can't find ways to make a living again. It might pay off now, for example, to try your hand at entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs specialize in creating livelihoods and wealth from scratch in unstructured situations.
What if the language has changed so greatly that the revived person is no longer fluent and is stigmatized as being culturally out of synch?
And you'd have that problem for like, what, a year or two? The applied psychology and neuroscience of the future could make acquiring new languages relatively easy.
What if the person has to go back to school for retraining? How will that be arranged?
People have that problem now. I don't see them committing suicide over it.
What if the society the person wakes up in has changed so very greatly that he or she doesnt want to live that way or finds he or she is subject to persecution for holding dissident beliefs?
Again, look at the big picture: If you revive under conditions with a realistic expectation of superlongevity, you can tough out problems like this.

I get the impression that the people who invent objections like these expect to have soft lives as some kind of entitlement. The human race hasn't survived and prospered because our ancestors had soft lives.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 6th, 2004, 6:46 pm

October 21st, 2010, 6:16 pm #2

who is going to finance these resurrections?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 16th, 2010, 2:14 pm

October 21st, 2010, 6:38 pm #3

http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?12,6 ... #msg-93104
What if someone is revived and they discover the world is more complicated than ever before and they lack the social skills and training to cope? (Imagine someone put into a coma in 1750, and they are awakened in 1950. That person has slept through the invention of the automobile, and wakes up, tries to cross a street and is run over, because he or she doenst know a thing about waiting for the green traffic light)
Which part of this world? In our time, someone who has trouble with life in a major city could live satisfactorily in a smaller community or rural area instead, or even migrate to another country. Future societies will probably also have a variety of social and political structures to choose from.
What if all their friends and family are dead and they have no social support community? A great part of humanity is to be not just a mere self, but a self-in-community?
Try harder. Plenty of people have done that, especially ones who've fled abusive political situations in their home countries to start new lives in countries with more benign governments, like the U.S.
What if the financial portfolio set aside for the frozen person is looted and embezzled and the person wakes up poor?
That gets to the issue of trusts. Ever hear of James Smithson? Alfred Nobel? Nobody "looted and embezzled" their trusts, even though their bequests imposed unwelcome burdens on their respective trustees. And a lot of people in the late 19th Century did not like Nobel because they considered his invention of dynamite socially detrimental. But his trustees carried out his wishes regardless, after deciding how to interpret them.

Besides the fact that trusts have an excellent track record, they also provide opportunities for trustees to gain status. A competent and honest trustee of someone else's fortune signals his integrity to other people, and that can gain him other kinds of rewards, like business opportunities he might not have had otherwise.

But suppose you do revive broke. That doesn't mean you can't find ways to make a living again. It might pay off now, for example, to try your hand at entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs specialize in creating livelihoods and wealth from scratch in unstructured situations.
What if the language has changed so greatly that the revived person is no longer fluent and is stigmatized as being culturally out of synch?
And you'd have that problem for like, what, a year or two? The applied psychology and neuroscience of the future could make acquiring new languages relatively easy.
What if the person has to go back to school for retraining? How will that be arranged?
People have that problem now. I don't see them committing suicide over it.
What if the society the person wakes up in has changed so very greatly that he or she doesnt want to live that way or finds he or she is subject to persecution for holding dissident beliefs?
Again, look at the big picture: If you revive under conditions with a realistic expectation of superlongevity, you can tough out problems like this.

I get the impression that the people who invent objections like these expect to have soft lives as some kind of entitlement. The human race hasn't survived and prospered because our ancestors had soft lives.
Pretty much all of those sound like challenges that people face and overcome every day, today. Many people enjoy those challenges or believe they have grown from overcoming them.

If you don't want to face such challenges, then don't prolong your life.


What if the society the person wakes up in has changed so very greatly that he or she doesnt want to live that way or finds he or she is subject to persecution for holding dissident beliefs?

I do worry about that one, somewhat. What if by the time revival is possible society deems my religious beliefs to be a mental disease they are obligated to cure, and what if they have the neuro-engineering procedures available to do so? What if they deem those beliefs to be a crime?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 16th, 2010, 2:14 pm

October 21st, 2010, 6:42 pm #4

who is going to finance these resurrections?
Resuscitations, if they ever prove to be possible, would surely be financed by those who feel a personal benefit from doing so. For example, a man might finance the resuscitation of his wife. Children might finance the resuscitation of their parents. (Or vice versa.) Friends might resuscitate friends. Altruists might feel the benefit from resuscitating anybody and might "adopt" hard luck cases that nobody cares about any more. Do-gooder socialists might run around claiming resuscitation is a "right" that must be paid for by society at everybody else's expense, by force.

Of course, if it is expensive and nobody can afford it, then it won't happen.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 6th, 2004, 6:46 pm

October 21st, 2010, 8:54 pm #5

I'm afraid.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 16th, 2010, 2:14 pm

October 21st, 2010, 10:00 pm #6

But the whole idea of cryonics is an exercise in wishful thinking. If you think the expected outcome is high enough you go for it, and if you don't think so, then you don't. Many people think there's a chance it might work and that the rewards are great enough they want to try.

Other people sit around and make fun of those people.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 6th, 2004, 6:46 pm

October 21st, 2010, 10:26 pm #7

I've said before we can't provide healthcare for living people now, and it will probably get worse. Where's the money for unfreezing people going to come from?

I'm trying to be realistic...
Quote
Like
Share

UNPERSON
UNPERSON

October 21st, 2010, 10:39 pm #8

http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?12,6 ... #msg-93104
What if someone is revived and they discover the world is more complicated than ever before and they lack the social skills and training to cope? (Imagine someone put into a coma in 1750, and they are awakened in 1950. That person has slept through the invention of the automobile, and wakes up, tries to cross a street and is run over, because he or she doenst know a thing about waiting for the green traffic light)
Which part of this world? In our time, someone who has trouble with life in a major city could live satisfactorily in a smaller community or rural area instead, or even migrate to another country. Future societies will probably also have a variety of social and political structures to choose from.
What if all their friends and family are dead and they have no social support community? A great part of humanity is to be not just a mere self, but a self-in-community?
Try harder. Plenty of people have done that, especially ones who've fled abusive political situations in their home countries to start new lives in countries with more benign governments, like the U.S.
What if the financial portfolio set aside for the frozen person is looted and embezzled and the person wakes up poor?
That gets to the issue of trusts. Ever hear of James Smithson? Alfred Nobel? Nobody "looted and embezzled" their trusts, even though their bequests imposed unwelcome burdens on their respective trustees. And a lot of people in the late 19th Century did not like Nobel because they considered his invention of dynamite socially detrimental. But his trustees carried out his wishes regardless, after deciding how to interpret them.

Besides the fact that trusts have an excellent track record, they also provide opportunities for trustees to gain status. A competent and honest trustee of someone else's fortune signals his integrity to other people, and that can gain him other kinds of rewards, like business opportunities he might not have had otherwise.

But suppose you do revive broke. That doesn't mean you can't find ways to make a living again. It might pay off now, for example, to try your hand at entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs specialize in creating livelihoods and wealth from scratch in unstructured situations.
What if the language has changed so greatly that the revived person is no longer fluent and is stigmatized as being culturally out of synch?
And you'd have that problem for like, what, a year or two? The applied psychology and neuroscience of the future could make acquiring new languages relatively easy.
What if the person has to go back to school for retraining? How will that be arranged?
People have that problem now. I don't see them committing suicide over it.
What if the society the person wakes up in has changed so very greatly that he or she doesnt want to live that way or finds he or she is subject to persecution for holding dissident beliefs?
Again, look at the big picture: If you revive under conditions with a realistic expectation of superlongevity, you can tough out problems like this.

I get the impression that the people who invent objections like these expect to have soft lives as some kind of entitlement. The human race hasn't survived and prospered because our ancestors had soft lives.
you treated this objection as if were based on reason. Why? You must know by now that objections to cryonics are not based on reason. Why even bother?
Quote
Share

Joined: May 17th, 2009, 5:13 pm

October 21st, 2010, 11:58 pm #9

I've said before we can't provide healthcare for living people now, and it will probably get worse. Where's the money for unfreezing people going to come from?

I'm trying to be realistic...
Excluding all the positives and focusing on the negatives isn't realism. Consider the following:

- Health care will be cheaper per unit treatment.
- Prevention (e.g. anti-aging) will eliminate need for most treatment.
- Safety will be better, eliminating most of the need for trauma care.
- Food, clothing, etc. will be made cheaper by advances in manufacturing.
- Money that goes into trusts today will turn into compound interest.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that "we can't provide healthcare for living people now, and it will probably get worse." Yes there is more demand than supply, but that has always been true. We are getting better at meeting the demand, not worse, and that is likely to continue.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 16th, 2010, 2:14 pm

October 22nd, 2010, 1:31 pm #10

I've said before we can't provide healthcare for living people now, and it will probably get worse. Where's the money for unfreezing people going to come from?

I'm trying to be realistic...
I think realism is great, and it's fine with me for you to respond to anything I say with a respectful dose of realism.

My question is why do you lump everybody together when you say "we can't provide healthcare for people now"? Everybody's money is not a big pool to be spent from together with joint decisions. Some people can afford experimental medical treatments; others sadly cannot. I don't think preventing some people from gambling what they've earned on an experiment will help those who can't afford the experiment at all.

I'm not asserting that the money will ever be there for anyone to make resuscitation work. You may be well right that it is unaffordable. I think it will be less likely to be affordable if people treat the private incomes of other people as something that must be spent by a joint decision, though.
Quote
Like
Share